Mac Harb

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where to start. The member is wrong, wrong and wrong again.

On the issue of transparency, as I stated earlier, Transparency International is an international non-governmental organization devoted to fighting corruption and promoting transparency in government around the world. It has consistently ranked Canada as the best out of all of the G-7 countries in terms of transparency. I do not understand what the member is talking about.

He talked about watchdogs. It was this government, it was the Prime Minister who decided for the first time ever in the history of Canada to allow the auditor general to report four times a year. That is the watchdog. It was this government for the first time ever that appointed an ethics counsellor to advise ministers and the Prime Minister on issues relating to ethics. That is transparency.

On the last issue, the member was talking about accountability. I thought Canadians elected members on that side of the House in order for them to act as opposition members and not to waste their time making unfounded and senseless allegations, and then coming up with bankrupt ideas. If anything that is what is fueling the cynicism of Canadians.

While I am on my feet, and you are being very generous, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about public trust and public confidence, my colleague knows there was a Léger & Léger survey as early as January before any of these allegations came about. It stated that in terms of the public trust, less than 50% of the people trust journalists; insurance brokers, 51%; publicists, 47%, real estate agents, 44%; and politicians, who were right behind car salesmen, 18%.

Why do people not trust politicians? It is because of those kinds of statements and the way those guys are undermining the public institution and democracy of this country. It is because those ladies and gentlemen are not doing their job and talking about the issues that matter the most to Canadians, issues such as unemployment, economic growth and taxation. Those are the issues that are important to Canadians. They do not want members to stand on their feet and make unfounded allegations, which none of them would make outside the House.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks by emphasizing the importance the government places on transparency and openness in all of its actions.

Each day members of the government stand in the House and respond to questions from the opposition. Each day we willingly respond to questions posed by the media. Each day we look for ways to engage Canadians so that their views are taken into consideration in the work that we do.

These are the actions of a government committed to openness in how it conducts business. These are the actions of a government committed to effectiveness in how that business is carried on. These are the actions of a government confident that Canadians know we are committed to doing the right thing.

In his motion, our colleague, the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, cites a recent survey of Canadians on how they see the federal political system. I am sure that all members share the view that as members of the House it is important that we listen to what the people of the country have to say. For those of us on the government benches, this principle dominates our actions.

The success of the government is directly linked to its dedication to working with Canadians to build the country we all believe in. From the Prime Minister and his cabinet, to each member of caucus, all of us embrace openness and understand the importance of listening to and hearing what Canadians have to say. That is what makes this government one that speaks for all Canadians and why Canadians have entrusted us to lead the country. I assure members that it is a responsibility that we do not take lightly.

The Prime Minister has risen many times in the House to stand by the action of the government. He, like all other members of the House, understands the importance of vigorous parliamentary debate on all matters of government business. He has also spoken on many occasions of the importance of integrity in how the government and its members conduct themselves.

His 1994 decision to appoint the government's first ever ethics counsellor broke new ground. He also championed the effort to strengthen the rules for lobbying and has been unwavering in his expectation that all public office holders, including ministers, must adhere to the conflict of interest code for public office holders, a code that has been revised and strengthened under this government.

Also, under the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada, the government has demonstrated time and again that it is ready to be held to the highest ethical standard and is ready to look for ways to improve upon those standards.

I share the views of all members of the House that we bear special responsibility as keepers of the public trust. As the Prime Minister told the House in 1994, “trust in the institutions of government is not a partisan issue but something all of us elected to public office have an obligation to restore”. He went on to say that “trust in institutions is as vital to a democracy as the air we breathe”.

Like the members of the opposition, we know we must be vigilant in protecting and nurturing that trust. The Prime Minister has stood before us and left no doubt that he willingly takes the responsibility to not only maintain the confidence of Canadians for the actions of his government but for how parliament and its institutions are maintained and seen by Canadians.

Each of us is responsible for our own behaviour as a member of parliament. Each of us is responsible for our own actions as individuals. These principles drive the government and help form the basis of its accountability to Canadians.

We must also remember that this Prime Minister has never shied away from accepting personal responsibility for the standard of conduct for ministers and for ensuring that these high standards are met. Here the ethics counsellor plays an important role in supporting the Prime Minister by providing advice to ministers on how to adhere to the conflict of interest code, as well as meeting the Prime Minister's personal expectations on ethical conduct.

Let me underscore that the process whereby the Prime Minister sets the standards of behaviour for his government and is accountable to Canadians for the government's performance is one of the most fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. It has existed this way since the beginning of Confederation and continues to be at the heart of the relationship between Canadians and their elected government.

There are many rules in place to guide the conduct of ministers. It was this government that put these rules and the office of the ethics counsellor in place to ensure that the highest standard of conduct is being met. It is this government that has been unwavering in its commitment to operate in a transparent and open manner, never turning away from allegations regarding how it conducted itself.

If the opposition were correct, one might reasonably ask why did this government put ethical guidelines in place? Why did it appoint an ethics counsellor? Why did it turn to the auditor general, an officer of parliament, to look into various matters? Why?

As is so often the case, the answer is quite simple. This is a government that is built on integrity, openness and accountability. It is a government that is not just doing the right thing, but wants to be seen as doing the right thing.

We will not be complacent. We will continue to take the appropriate steps to ensure our effectiveness as a government. We will remain open to change, knowing that we best serve Canadians by moving forward. This is about transparency and about getting government right. This is about Canadians knowing this is their government and it is committed to serving in their interests with the utmost honesty and integrity.

I have spoken of the importance of openness to this government. I have spoken of the high standards set by the Prime Minister for this government. Because of the nature of the work of all parliamentarians, from time to time we will face ethical dilemmas and challenges as members of this House. We owe it to all Canadians to ensure that all steps are taken so that the integrity of this institution and its members is above reproach.

Let me close by stating that I understand the role of the opposition in holding the government accountable. This is an important principle of parliamentary democracy, but we must be vigilant in ensuring that the discussion and debate we have on these matters is based on fact and not on fiction or rhetoric. Canadians expect no less than that and the opposition knows it.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am frankly very disappointed. The House was exceptionally well served by the former Liberal member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke. For many years that riding produced wonderful Liberals. It is quite unfortunate that we have had this hiccup over the past four years, where the constituency, for whatever reason, has decided to experiment with a new member.

Frankly, it is unfortunate that she stands up in the House and attempts to attack the integrity of one of the finest prime ministers that has ever served this country, a Prime Minister who for the past 40 years has proven over and over again the kind of leadership, sincerity, vision and integrity that this country deserves so very much.

I want to ask her this: If it was so bad why would Transparency International have identified this country as one of the cleanest among all of the G-7 countries? Why would the United Nations over and over again identify this country as one of the finest countries in which to live? Are things so bad? Frankly, I think the only corrupt thing is on the other side in the brains of those opposition members who cannot even talk about issues. Rather, they bring the debate to such a low level.

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find that the opposition member is engaging in unjustified smearing.

I have a specific question for the hon. member. In a poll conducted by Léger & Léger, it was found that 53% of respondents said that provincial governments also have problems.

Could the hon. member tell me if he thinks that the Parti Quebecois in Quebec is included in this negative perception by Canadians? What does he think? Does he think that there are problems in Quebec, as in Ontario and Alberta, where the Conservatives are in office, and in other provinces?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, but I think my colleague was not listening, this particular topic was not covered in the bill. Committee chairs do not make laws. My colleague needs a lesson on how things work with regard to bills.

Usually, a bill comes before a committee on the initiative of the ministers responsible. The chair or members of the committee are not involved in the drafting of the bill.

My colleague is not making a positive contribution to this debate. We are here to debate Bill C-47. Frankly, I expected the members to talk about this bill, but they rise and talk about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the bill. The member talked about microbreweries in his neighbourhood and in his region. But does he have concrete proposals to make about what this House or a future House could do to deal with these issues? Does he have concrete proposals to make about what can be done? Does he have any ideas?

We must deal with the issues before us. A committee chair does not introduce a bill. It is the result of a concerted effort by the industry, the public and the public administration. It does not emanate from a committee chair.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, as regards responsibilities, when a committee is reviewing a bill, the first administrative duty of the chair is to examine the issues before it. The committee was reviewing Bill C-47. Therefore, the first and last responsibility of the chair was to examine the issues relating to Bill C-47.

When an opposition or government member proposes a motion on any topic, the chair's responsibility is to take that motion or suggestion and refer it to the clerk of the committee.

This is precisely what the chair did in this case. The clerk of the committee said that this topic was not covered in Bill C-47. Therefore, the chair agreed that the committee would not look into it. I do not see how we could say that this puts the chair in a conflict of interest position. As we say, this is a slippery slope.

If we start saying that a member of parliament is responsible for what his spouse, mother, father, brother, cousin or any other relative or neighbour does, it will never end.

We need to realize that, for some time now, integrity issues have been important not only for government members, but also for opposition members. When issues like that are raised, they have to be based on clear objectives and a just foundation.

In this case, however, our colleagues are raising an issue that is devoid of any substance. These are very personal issues that reflect badly not only on my colleague, but on the House of Commons and on all Canadians.

We are to blame if the public does not trust us, because we are responsible for what is being broadcast over the speakers in the House of Commons. We are somehow responsible for casting a negative light upon our Canadian parliamentary institutions. All because the opposition parties are making unsubstantiated allegations.

I challenge the hon. member to make these same allegations outside the House of Commons and see what the Canadian courts make of them. If the member can prove these allegations in any way, shape or form, he should make them outside the House of Commons.

This bill addresses all the topics, except for the breweries. The hon. member should stand up and apologize to my hon. colleague from London West.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to first pay tribute to the chair of the finance committee, the member for London West, a person with integrity, a commitment to public office, an understanding of the issues and an unequivocal sincerity and who has been putting in endless hours, days, months and years trying to serve her constituents and the people who have elected her. To hear some of my colleagues trying to remotely question the appearance, or the lack of, or whatever they are trying to put before the House, I find totally unacceptable and it certainly does not represent the views of anyone outside of the one or two members who have raised this question.

I also would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Oak Ridges, for his hard work on this legislation and his diligence, as well as his commitment to ensure that Canadian laws are meeting the objectives that they were set out for. I also would like to congratulate him for being so open to consultation, suggestions and ideas, and I also want to commend him for the way he has carried the bill through the committee and through all the different processes that bills have to go through.

Just for the record, so that my colleague will realize that she and my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois who asked the question were wrong when they made the statement that microbreweries are in fact part of the bill, the reality of it is that the bill does not make any mention in any way, shape or form of microbreweries or nanobreweries. In fact, they are simply not part of the bill. What this legislation does is look at the overall federal framework for taxation of alcohol and tobacco products. It tries to bring that up to date and to put in place a mechanism that reflects the reality of the day. As well, it tries to address some of the issues that need to be addressed.

Specifically, I want to quote from the bill some of the things that the legislation deals with. First, one of the key features of this legislation deals with:

(a) the continued imposition of a production levy on spirits, tobacco products and raw leaf tobacco and the replacement of the existing excise levy on sales of wine with a production levy at an equivalent rate;--

In this part of the bill there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of microbreweries or breweries in general.

The second aspect of it deals with:

(b) the replacement of the excise duty and excise tax on tobacco products other than cigars with a single excise duty;--

at the equivalent of the existing combined rate. Here again there is absolutely no mention of breweries, micro or otherwise.

The third aspect of this legislation deals with:

(c) the introduction of excise warehouses to allow for the deferral of the payment of the production levy on domestic and imported spirits and wine to the time of sale to the retailer;--

Once again there is absolutely no mention of brewers in this section of the legislation.

Another section of the legislation deals with:

(d) more comprehensive licensing requirements and new registration requirements for persons carrying on activities in relation to goods subject to duty;--

There is absolutely no mention of breweries in this section.

The legislation also deals with:

(e) explicit recognition of limited exemptions for certain goods produced by individuals for their personal use;--

There is absolutely no mention in this section of breweries.

A section of the legislation deals with introducing:

(f) tight new controls on the possession and distribution of goods on which duties have not been paid;--

Once again, for my colleagues from the Bloc, there is absolutely no mention in this section of the legislation of anything to do with breweries, micro or otherwise.

The legislation also contains:

(g) modern provisions concerning the use of spirits and wine for non-beverage purposes and the use of specially denatured alcohol;--

Again, in this section of Bill C-47 there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of breweries, micro or otherwise. Also in this legislation there are provisions in order to ensure:

(h) updated administrative provisions, including new remittance, assessment and appeal provisions that are similar to those under the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax legislation;--

Again microbreweries are not mentioned in this section of the legislation. Also there are elements that deal with:

(i) updated enforcement provisions, including new offence, penalty and collection provisions;--

Again, in this section of Bill C-47 there is no mention of breweries, micro or otherwise.

There are other provisions included in this legislation, such as the following:

the replacement of the existing provisions in the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act relating to the excise levies on spirits, wine and tobacco necessitates consequential amendments to those Acts as well as other acts, including the Budget Implementation Act, 2000, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, the Criminal Code...the Customs Tariff, the Export Act, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, the Special Economic Measures Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

The legislation states:

This enactment also implements changes to the ships' stores provisions, which were announced by the government on September 27, 2001. These changes broaden the enabling legislation for ships' stores regulations and implement a temporary fuel tax rebate program for certain ships that, as a result of the amendments to the Ships' Stores Regulations effective June 1, 2002, will no longer qualify for ships' stores relief.

In addition:

...this enactment implements the tobacco tax increases announced by the government on November 1, 2001.

All these comments are to state to the House, for the record and for Canadians who are watching or who have watched over the past few days the incredibly unfounded allegations of my colleagues in the Bloc, that the breweries are not included in the legislation. Therefore, the attack on the chair is unwarranted and unnecessary. Frankly, it is high time for my colleagues to stand and apologize to the member for London West for the undue stress they imposed on the member, who is incredibly sincere and has an incredible level of intelligence and commitment to serve her constituency.

The legislation would do two things. It would create a provision which would ensure that the laws of Canada are enforced in a manner that is up to par with other legislation in Canada. At the same time, the legislation would create a provision for people growing tobacco or making wine in their homes and would give them the ability to use that tobacco, alcohol or wine for their own personal use without being penalized by the law. As well the legislation would bring some of the other legislation into line so that the government can continue to fulfil its commitment to the people in the industry who are trying to produce products and create jobs, therefore responding to the needs of Canadians.

Some of my colleagues might wonder whether the bill would harm in any way, shape or form those who are in different sectors. Let us take for example the people who work in the tobacco sector. There are in excess of 1,200 tobacco producers across Ontario creating over 17,000 jobs. Bill C-47 would not affect them in any way, shape or form. It would not touch them.

The legislation would not affect people in the wine and spirit producing sectors in a negative way per se. Rather, it would deal with the issue of people who operate without licences and try to sell their product on the market without proper certification. The element of enforcement exists in the legislation for that purpose.

We cannot look at Bill C-47 in isolation. It is part of the government's overall agenda of revisiting every law on the books to ensure our laws continue to respond to the needs of Canadians. When the Prime Minister was elected in 1993 one of the pledges he made to the House and to Canadians was that we would look at the way we do our job as a government. He said we would look at our mandate which is to respond to the needs of Canadians.

As we have seen, the government has done just that. First, we addressed the incredible amount of debt and deficit that existed when we came to power. It was at an all time high of over $42 billion. In no time at all the government was able to turn the corner and bring us into a surplus situation that has enabled us to not only pay down the debt but to support the programs Canadians feel strongly about such as health care, education and other issues that affect them.

Bill C-47 is part of the overall government agenda of trying to bring our laws into the 21st century so our industries can do well. My colleagues in the opposition consistently attack the government about where we are on the international scene. I have in my hand a report published in January, 2002 by KPMG, a well respected international organization. The report deals with competitiveness on the international scene. The report is available to my colleagues on the opposition side. It is my hope they will obtain a copy of it and have a look at what the government has done over the years. I will not read through it but according to KPMG Canada has been identified as the best country in the world in which to do business. Canada is way ahead of the United States, the United Kingdom and many other countries in the industrialized world. We continue to strive in that area.

I will read for hon. members what it says about an area in which Canada has been the pride of all Canadians: labour costs and taxation. Canada is still one of the best countries in the world in terms of taxation. I will come to that in a minute.

My colleagues on the other side often quiz the government on the issue of competitiveness and labour costs. Hon. members will be happy to know that when it comes to wages and salaries, statutory plans and employer sponsored benefits Canada ranks first. That is ahead of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France, Austria, the United States and Japan.

I will come back to the issue of taxation and what we are talking about in the bill. When it comes to levels of corporate taxation Canada has been ranked a close second to the United Kingdom but well ahead of all other G-7 countries.

This is all to say that what we have seen from the government over the past nine years is an unequivocal commitment to respond to the need of Canadians and ensure Canada continues to be the best country in the world in which to live and do business. Bill C-47 fits exactly into the government's agenda and where we are going.

I sometimes see my colleagues on the other side taking cheap shots at the chair of the finance committee or the parliamentary secretary. We have seen reports in the press over the past few days indicating 70% of Canadians do not have trust in their elected officials. It is my duty and obligation as a member of parliament to stand and say it is these kinds of unfounded allegations that are eroding the trust of the public in public institutions.

When members of this institution attack the integrity of other members we start to see an erosion of public confidence in our institutions. It is the responsibility of each member of this institution to stand and be counted. We must state the facts, not use innuendos or unfounded allegations. Members must not make comments if at the end of the day they cannot walk outside the House and make the same comments. Such members know they will be sued if they do because their statements are totally false and without foundation. Members of the House must be in a shameful state of mind to stand and attack the integrity of other members without proper foundation, without any legs to stand on, without any brain to guide them and without any soul to go back to.

In that spirit I want the House to know Bill C-47 has nothing to do with breweries. If there is a social or a business problem with the issue of breweries it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to address it in the context of something else, not in the context of what is before us and the House today. To turn around and make an allegation about the chair of the committee puts her in an awkward position. If the issue is not in the bill and she or the clerk have ruled that the issue cannot be dealt with by the committee, it puts the committee chair in a conflict.

What a shameful and baseless allegation. It is my hope that the same member who stood to attack the member will stand right now, as my colleague would say, and apologize not only to the member but to all Canadians because Bill C-47 is supported by the industry. It is supported by the people. It is supported by the same institution the hon. member is trying to protect. He is doing no service whatsoever to his constituents by making these kinds of unfounded allegations.

It is my hope that the House will approve Bill C-47 without any delay.

[Arts and Culture, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour General Choi Hong Hi, father and founder of the Korean martial art of tae kwon do. For over 50 years, General Choi's lifelong dedication to this unique form of physical and mental discipline has led to the practice of tae kwon do in over 72 countries worldwide.

Since its inception, students of the art have been taught to follow the basic tenets of tae kwon do: courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self-control and indomitable spirit.

Today General Choi still trains every day at the age of 82 and he continues to travel the world promoting the benefits of physical and mental training to people of all ages.

I wish to salute General Choi's lifelong work and his dedication to peace, harmony and justice and extend to him wishes for health and happiness.

[International Co-operation, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Washington there was a meeting that was attended by ministers of finance from around the world, including the Minister of Finance of Canada. They backed a plan that was proposed by the World Bank to help children in poor countries to have access to primary education.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation. Could she tell the House what her department's plan is to meet the aims and the commitment that we made in Washington.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal government came to power it has taken this issue seriously. The children agenda has been the main focus in most of the budgets that have been introduced in the House. We recognize that children are our most valuable resource and at the same time the most vulnerable members of our society. We have taken action in order to protect them and continue to do so. I would like to put on record some of the initiatives that the government has taken and some of the actions that have been put in place.

On October 18, 2001, parliament passed amendments to the criminal code. A number of those amendments dealt with provisions to protect children from criminals who seek to sexually exploit them using the Internet. The legislation has done a number of things. It has created a new offence of luring which targets criminals who use the Internet to lure and exploit children for sexual purposes. Those amendments ensure that it is an offence for anyone to transmit or make available, export or intentionally access child pornography on the Internet.

As a result of these amendments judges are able to order the abolition of child pornography posted on computer systems in Canada. Judges are able to order the forfeiture of any instruments or equipment used in the commission of child pornography offences.

Judges are also able to keep sexual offenders away from children by making prohibition orders, long term offender designations and peace bonds available for luring in child pornography offences. It also amended the criminal code respecting child sex tourism that was enacted in 1997 to simplify the process for prosecuting Canadians in Canada who commit sexual offences against children in other countries.

The amendments to the criminal code were passed in October 2001. I will sum up for the House some of the initiatives the government has taken in order to protect children since coming to power in 1993. The government has taken this issue seriously and has made it a priority.

For example, amendments were introduced to the criminal code dealing more effectively with high risk offenders. The amendments have strengthened the dangerous offender provisions in the criminal code by introducing a long term offender designation that allows judges to impose a period of supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison and creating a new judicial restraint provision to permit controls to be applied to those at high risk of committing serious personal injury offences, including attacks on children.

The government also established a national flagging system to help prosecutors deal more effectively with high risk offenders. These are some of the initiatives the government has taken on behalf of our children.